0 visualizações

Enviado por skysoblue025

LTS

- Chaos Book
- Advanced Control Systems
- 00664150 d
- Stability
- SMA 4135_2016--2017ex
- [R. Park Reinforced Concrete Slabs
- Raad - On the Influence of Anti-roll Stiffness on Vehicle
- Lecture_03 Stability of Equilibrium Points
- 3P04 Tutorial 3 Why Model 2008
- Chapter 4 Solution
- IMPLEMENTATION OF A FUZZY LYAPUNOV-BASED CONTROL STRATEGY FOR A MACRO-MICRO MANIPULATOR
- (eBook - PDF - Robotics) Hybrid Control Design for Wheeled Mobile Robot
- Abd Elkareem Soliman PAPER 17
- Linear Systems Final Exam Formula Sheet
- Beamer Rodiak
- PACAM
- 112244
- 2011-10-PotM-New-Approach-Simulation-Based-Type-Testing-ENU.pdf
- webercise system of linear equations
- Program Semester Genap Kelas x

Você está na página 1de 5

Long-term Stability

dynamics relies on the idea of time-scale decomposition. Assuming that the fast variables are infinitely fast and are stable in

the long-term, the QSS model replaces the differential equations

of transient dynamics by their equilibrium equations to reduce

complexity and increase computation efficiency. Although the

idea of QSS model is intuitive, its theoretical foundation has

not yet been developed. In this paper, several counter examples

in which the QSS model fails to provide a correct approximation

of the complete dynamic model in power system are presented

and the reasons of the failure are explained from the viewpoint

of nonlinear analysis.

Index Termsquasi-steady state model, complete dynamical

model, long-term stability.

I. I NTRODUCTION

He ever-increasing loading of transmission networks together with a steady increase in load demands has pushed

the operation conditions of many power systems ever closer

to their stability limits [1]- [5]. Voltage stability has become

one of the major concerns for the secure operation of power

systems. Voltage stabilities are classified into transient voltage

stability, mid-term stability and long-term stability based on

different time scales. The distinction between mid-term and

long-term can be based on neither fixed time-frame basis nor

modelling requirements [2], hence we only use long-term time

scale in this paper to denote the one beyond the transient time

scale for stability analysis. This paper considers the long-term

voltage stability model.

Power system dynamic models are large and involve different time scales, and it is time-consuming and data-demanding

to simulate the dynamic behaviors over long time intervals.

Based on the idea of time scale decomposition, the quasi

steady-state (QSS) [4] [6] seeks to reach a good compromise

between accuracy and efficiency. However, there are certain

limitations of the QSS model such as singularity problem.

When this happens, the Newton iterations diverge in practice

and the simulation cannot proceed. There are several papers

that addressed the singularity problem and tried to solve

it by a combination of detailed simulation and the QSS

approximation [7], Newton method with optimal multiplier [8],

and continuation method [9].

However, less attention has been paid to a severe situation

when the assessment based on the QSS model is not reliable.

Xiaozhe Wang is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853 USA e-mail: xw264@cornell.edu

Hsiao-Dong Chiang is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA email:hc63@cornell.edu

In this situation, the QSS model gives incorrect stability assessments in long-term stability analysis which means the QSS

model concludes the stability of the complete model, which is

in fact unstable. Due to the existence of these situations, the

QSS model may not consistently give conservative stability

analysis of the complete model. In other words, the QSS

model does not work under certain conditions, thus sufficient

conditions are needed under which the QSS model provides

correct stability assessment of the complete model.

This paper is organized as follows. Section II and Section

III briefly introduce the basic concept of complete dynamic

model and the QSS model with numerical examples. Section V

presents two counter examples in which the QSS model fails to

provide correct approximations of the complete model. Specifically, while the QSS model is stable, the complete model

suffers from voltage instabilities. Also, theoretical explanation

for this failure is presented. Conclusions and perspectives are

stated in Section VI.

II. C OMPLETE DYNAMIC M ODEL

The complete power system model for calculating system

dynamic response relative to a disturbance comprises a set

of first-order differential equations and a set of algebraic

equations [1]- [5]. The algebraic equations:

0 = g(zc , zd , x, y)

(1)

static behaviors of passive devices. While the transient dynamics are captured by differential equations:

x = f (zc , zd , x, y)

(2)

synchronous generator and its associated excitation system,

interconnecting transmission network together with static load,

induction and synchronous motor loads, as well as other

devices such as HVDC converter and SVC. f and g are smooth

functions, and vectors x and y are the corresponding shortterm state variables and algebraic variables respectively. Both

continuous equations and discrete-time equations are needed

to represent long-term dynamics:

zc

zd (k + 1) =

hc (zc , zd , x, y)

(3)

hd (zc , zd (k), x, y)

(4)

variables respectively, and 1/ is the maximum time constant

among devices. These equations describe the dynamics of

exponential recovery load and thermostatically recovery load,

x

zc

= f (zc , zd , x, y)

= hc (zc , zd , x, y)

zd (k + 1) = hd (zc , zd (k), x, y)

(5)

(6)

(7)

different time scales which makes the time domain simulation

over long time intervals very demanding. The QSS model

based on time-scale decomposition is proposed in [4] [6] [10]

and will be briefly stated in the following Section.

III. Q UASI S TEADY-S TATE M ODEL

The Quasi Steady-State (QSS) model is derived using the

idea of time-scale decomposition and aims to offer a good

compromise between the efficiency and accuracy [6]. In the

QSS model, the differential equations describing transient

dynamics are replaced by their equilibrium equations under

the assumption that transient dynamics are stable and settle

down infinitely fast in the long-term time scale.

Table I illustrates the concept of time-scale decomposition.

The transient model is obtained by assuming that slow variables zc and zd are constant parameters. While in the QSS

model, the transient dynamic equations (2) are replaced by

the corresponding equilibrium equations:

f (zc , zd , x, y) = 0

(8)

TABLE I

transient model

(approximation for transient stability)

short-term:0-30s

QSS model

(approximation for long-term stability)

long-term:30s-a few minutes

2.9

QSS model

2.85

1.016

complete model

QSS model

1.014

1.012

2.8

1.01

2.75

1.008

2.7

complete model

QSS model instead of efficiency, thus the same time step as

that of the complete model will be used and the Jacobian of

the QSS model is updated at every time step as the complete

model.

A numerical example is presented below which shows the

trajectory comparison between the complete model and the

QSS model. The QSS model and the complete model finally

settle down to the same long-term stable equilibrium point

(SEP) in this case, and the QSS model provides a good

approximation of the complete model in long-term stability

analysis. However this is not always true which can be seen

from the counter examples presented in Section V.

The numerical study was performed using PSAT 2.1.6 [15]

on a modified model of IEEE 14-bus test system whose

one-line diagram is attached in Appendix A. There was a

fault at Bus 9 at 1s and the fault was cleared at 1.083s

by opening the breaker between Bus 10 and Bus 9. In the

complete model, the fast variables settled down by 30s after

the contingency, while the dynamics of load tap changer,

turbine governors and exponential load evolved in a longer

time period. The QSS model was used starting from 30s

when transient dynamics almost settled down. When the QSS

model was used, fast variables converged infinitely fast when

slow variables evolved. Finally, both the QSS model and the

complete model converged to the same long-term SEP. The

comparison of trajectories of the complete model and the QSS

model are shown in Fig. 1.

vr1 of Exc 2

well as shunt capacitor/reactor switching all belongs to longterm dynamics. Note that shunt switching and LTC are typical

discrete components captured by Eqn (4).

Usually, transient (model) dynamics have much smaller time

constants compared with those of long-term dynamics, as a

result, zc and zd are also termed as slow state variables, and

x are termed as fast state variables. If we represent the above

equations in time scale where = t, and we denote as

d

d , then we have:

1.006

30

90

time(s)

150

200

1.004

0

30s(0.6)

60.6

120.6

170.6

zc = hc (zc , zd , x, y)

zd (k + 1) = hd (zc , zd (k), x, y)

x = f (zc , zd , x, y)

0 = g(zc , zd , x, y)

x = f (zc , zd , x, y)

0 = g(zc , zd , x, y)

Fig. 1. The trajectory comparisons of the complete model and the QSS

model for different variables. The trajectory of complete model followed that

of the QSS model until both of them converged to the same long-term SEP.

zc = hc (zc , zd , x, y)

zd (k + 1) = hd (zc , zd (k), x, y)

0 = f (zc , zd , x, y)

0 = g(zc , zd , x, y)

well with similar accuracy as the detailed complete model,

while it takes much less time to simulate if a larger time step

or adaptive time steps are implemented. Also, compared with

the complete model, the Jacobian matrix of the QSS model

does not need to be updated at every time step, and it can be

updated only following discrete events such as LTC or OXL

activation unless slow convergence rate is observed [4]. As a

result, the QSS model is faster to simulate than the complete

are needed to give a theoretical explanation of the simulation results. If we are interested in the study region Uc =

Dzc Dzd Dx Dy , both models have the same set

of equilibrium points, that is E = {(zc , zd , x, y) U :

zd (k + 1) = zd (k), hc (zc , zd , x, y) = 0, f (zc , zd , x, y) =

0, g(zc, zd , x, y) = 0}. Assuming (zcls , zdls , xls , yls ) E is

an asymptotically long-term SEP of both the QSS model and

the complete model starting from (zc0 , zd0 , x0 , y0 ), and let

c (, zc , zd , x, y) be the trajectory of the complete model and

q (, zc , zd , x, y) be the trajectory of the QSS model starting

from the same initial point, then the stability region for the

Ac (zcls , zdls , xls , yls ) := {(zc , zd , x, y) U : c (, zc ,

zd , x, y) (zcls , zdls , xls , yls ) as +}

(9)

For the QSS model, its dynamics are constrained to the set:

:= {(zc , zd , x, y) U : f (zc , zd , x, y) = 0, g(zc , zd , x, y) =

0} which is termed as the constraint manifold. Note that the

constraint manifold may not be smooth due to the discrete

behavior of zd . Then the stability region of (zcls , zdls , xls , yls )

for the QSS model are defined as:

to the long-term SEP (zcls , zdls , xls , yls ) which the trajectory

q (, zc , zd , x, y) of the QSS model converges to. Hence,

the QSS model is not an appropriate approximation for the

complete model and gives incorrect stability assessments in

this case.

family of transient models

zd , x, y) (zcls , zdls , xls , yls ) as +}

(10)

Similarly, for the transient model with fixing slow variables

zc and zd (k):

x = f (zc , zd (k), x, y)

0 = g(zc , zd (k), x, y)

(11)

stability region of transient SEP (zc , zd (k), xts , yts ) is defined

as:

At (zc , zd (k), xts , yts ) := {(x, y) Dx Dy , zc = zc ,

zd = zd (k) : t (t, zc , zd (k), x, y) (zc , zd (k),

xts , yts ) as t +}

(12)

where t (t, zc , zd , x, y) is the trajectory of the transient model

(11). A comprehensive theory of stability regions can be found

in [11] [12] [13] [14].

Generally, the SEPs of each transient model are isolated

and the trajectory q (, zc , zd , x, y) of the QSS model does

not meet the singular surface and is constrained on s all the

time where s is defined as:

s = {(zc , zd , x, y) : all eigenvalues of(

f

f

x

y

g 1 g

) satisfy Re() < 0, g/y is nonsingular}

y x

(13)

Note that each point of s is a SEP of the transient model

defined in Eqn (11) for fixed zc and zd (k). Thus generally

the trajectory q (, zc , zd , x, y) of QSS model moved along s

on which each point is a SEP of the corresponding transient

model. Given enough simulation time which is usually to be

several minutes, both the QSS model and the complete model

converge to the same long-term SEP.

However, if when zd firstly change from zd (k 1) to

zd (k), and the initial point (zc , zd (k), x0 , y0 ) on the trajectory c (, zc , zd , x, y) lies outside the stability region

At (zc , zd (k), xts , yts ) of the transient model:

x =

f (zc , zd (k), x, y)

0 =

g(zc , zd (k), x, y)

(14)

then c (, zc , zd , x, y) will move away from the slow manifold s as shown in Fig. 2. As a result, the trajectory

asymptotically SEPs

of transient models

Fig. 2. When zd firstly change to zd (k), the initial point of the complete

model get outside of the stability region of the transient model and the

trajectory of the complete model moves far way from the QSS model from

then on.

V. C OUNTER E XAMPLES

The QSS model has some limitations in dealing with severe

disturbances. As stated in [4], the QSS model cannot reproduce

the instabilities where the slow variables trigger instability of

fast variables. This means the QSS model can not capture the

insecure cases when the fast variables are excited by the slow

variables, thus result in voltage instabilities. In addition, the

QSS model may converge to another stable equilibrium point

different from the one the complete model converges to. Under

these two situations, the QSS model does not capture the

dynamic behavior of the complete model and give inaccurate

approximations of the complete model. In brief, the QSS

model can lead to incorrect stability assessment.

A. Numerical Example I

This system was set up based on the modified IEEE-14 bus

system in Section III. Apart from the two turbine governors

at Bus 1 and Bus 2 , there were three exponential recovery

loads at Bus 9, Bus 10 and Bus 14 respectively, and five over

excitation limiters were added for each exciter which started

to work after a fixed delay 10s. Besides there were three load

tap changers which are discrete models [4]:

mk m if v < v0 + d and mk > mmin

mk+1 =

mk

otherwise

(15)

where m denotes the lap changer ratio. The one-line diagram

of the modified system is also attached in Appendix A.

There were two faults at Bus 9 and Bus 6 that happened

simultaneously at 0.02s, and the faults were cleared by opening

the breakers between Bus 7 and Bus 9, between Bus 6 and

Bus 11 at 0.1s, and the one between Bus 6 and Bus 13 at

1s. The complete model was employed for the first 30s while

the QSS model was employed afterwards. The comparison of

trajectories of different variables in the complete model and

the QSS model is showed in Fig. 3.

In this case, the QSS model failed to give a correct approximation of the complete model. The time domain simulation

of the complete model stopped and stated that there was singularity likely in the system around 101.2155s (71.8155 ),

while the QSS model did not encounter such problems and

continued to converge to the long-term SEP. From Fig. 3, it

can be seen that in the complete model, fast dynamics x were

excited when slow variables evolved. The violent variation

of fast variables x due to slow variables finally resulted in

voltage instability of the complete model such that it did not

converge to the same asymptotically SEP as the QSS model.

However, if we only look at the QSS model, the dynamics

of fast variables x due to slow variables are not noticeable

since x and y converged to the transient SEPs immediately.

Therefore, if the state of long-term SEP is acceptable, the postfault system will be misclassified as stable. In this case, the

assumption behind the QSS model that transient dynamics are

stable in long-term time scale is violated.

x =

f (zc , zd (2), x, y)

0 =

g(zc , zd (2), x, y)

is plotted in Fig. (5). It can be seen that both the fast variable

and the algebraic variable converged to the SEP of the transient

model (17). In other words, the initial point (zc , zd (2), x0 , y0 )

of the complete model (16) is inside the stability region

At (zc , zd (2), xts , yts ) of the transient model (17).

However when zd changed from zd (2) to zd (3) at 40s, the

complete model was no longer stable which can be seen from

Fig. (6). The fast variables were excited by the evolution of

slow variables zd and zc . The trajectories of fast variables in

the corresponding transient model are plotted in Fig (7), and

the initial point (zc , zd (3), x0 , y0 ) of the complete model (16)

(substitute zd (2) by zd (3)) was outside of the stability region

At (zc , zd (3), xts , yts ) of the transient model (17) (substitute

zd (2) by zd (3)) As a result, the QSS model gives incorrect

approximations of the complete model from then on.

the trajectory comparison of transient variable v of Exc 2

r1

3.75

complete model

QSS model

3.7

the trajectory comparison of fast variable of Syn 2

0.3

complete model

QSS model

r1

2.5

complete model

QSS model

2

0.35

1.055

1.05

1.045

3.4

1

0.45

0.5

0 30s(0.6)

3.6

3.55

3.5

0.4

3.35

0

20

40

60

80

100

1.04

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.5

60.6

120.6

170.6

oxl

of Oxl 2

0.25

0.2

0

0 30s(0.6)

60.6

120.6

170.6

1.15

complete model

QSS model

1.1

0.15

1.05

0.1

Fig. 4. The trajectories comparisons of the complete model and the QSS

model for different variables when load tap changers changed at 30s. Both

the complete model and the QSS model converged to the same SEP.

3.68

1.065

the trajectory of transient variable vr1 of Exc 2

3.67

0.95

0.05

complete model

QSS model

60.6

120.6

170.6

1.066

1.0665

3.65

1.067

3.64

0.9

0 30s(0.6)

1.0675

60.6

120.6

170.6

3.63

1.068

3.62

1.0685

3.61

Fig. 3. The trajectory comparisons of the complete model and the QSS model

for different variables. The assumption of QSS model that the fast variables

are stable is not satisfied such that it gives incorrect approximations.

checking the trajectory of the transient model. When zd firstly

changed from zd (1) to zd (2) at 30s, denote the initial point

on the trajectory of the complete model when this change

happened as (zc , zd (2), x0 , y0 ), then the complete model fixed

at zd (2) starting from (zc , zd (2), x0 , y0 ):

zc

x =

0 =

at Bus 9 at the SEP of the transient model

1.0655

3.66

0

0 30s(0.6)

1.065

complete model

QSS model

1.06

3.65

3.45

1.5

(17)

hc (zc , zd (2), x, y)

(16)

f (zc , zd (2), x, y)

g(zc , zd (2), x, y)

model and the QSS model converged to the same long-term

SEP. Moreover, the trajectories of two variables in the corre-

1.069

3.6

3.59

1.0695

0

10

1.07

Fig. 5.

The trajectories of the transient model when load tap changers

changed at 30s which indicated that (zc , zd (2), x0 , y0 ) was inside the

stability region of the transient model.

B. Numerical Example II

Another numerical example performed on a modified IEEE

145-bus system is presented below. Due to limited pages, only

simulation results are shown in Fig. 8. We can see that the

voltage at Bus 90 was collapsed around 235s in the complete

model, however, the voltage at Bus 90 settled down to the

value around 0.9344 p.u in the QSS model. Also, the QSS

model did not provide correct approximations for transient

variables.

10

3.8

complete model

QSS model

Bus 13

Bus 13

3.7

Bus 14

Bus 14

Bus 10

Bus 10

Bus 12

Bus 12

3.6

Bus 09

Bus 09

Bus 11

Bus 11

3.5

Bus 07

Bus 07

Bus 06

3.4

complete model

QSS model

3.3

0

20

40

60

80

Bus 06

Bus 04

20

40

60

80

100

Bus 05

Bus 01

Bus 01

Bus 02

Fig. 6. The trajectories comparisons of the complete model and the QSS

model for different variables when load tap changers changed at 40s. The

complete model was unstable while the QSS model converged to a SEP.

3.66

3.78

3.655

3.77

Bus 02

Bus 03

Bus 03

of the example in Section V-A

3.65

Bus 04

Bus 05

1

0

100

Bus 08

3.76

3.645

3.75

3.64

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

3.74

3.635

3.73

3.63

3.72

3.625

3.71

3.62

the trajectory of transient variable vf of Exc 2

3.615

3.7

f

3.61

3.69

10

Fig. 7.

The trajectories of the transient model when load tap changers

changed at 40s which indicated that (zc , zd (3), x0 , y0 ) was outside of the

stability region of the transient model.

the trajectory comparison of algebraic variable V at Bus 90

1

2.65

0.8

2.6

0.6

2.55

0.4

2.5

0.2

2.45

complete model

QSS model

0

0 40s(0.8)

80.8

160.8

260.8

complete model

QSS model

0 40s(0.8)

80.8

160.8

260.8

Fig. 8. The trajectory comparisons of the complete model and the QSS

model. The QSS model converged to a long-term SEP while the complete

model suffered from voltage collapse.

VI. C ONCLUSION

The QSS model was derived based on time-scale decomposition and it offers a good compromise between accuracy

and efficiency. In this paper, two counter examples in which

the QSS model provides inaccurate stability assessments are

presented, and the reasons for the inability of the QSS model

to approximate the complete model are explained from the

stability regions of the transient models of the complete model.

These counter examples suggest that there is a necessity to

provide a theoretical foundation for the QSS model. Moreover,

an improved QSS model may be needed in order to give

consistently accurate approximation of the complete model.

A PPENDIX A

T HE O NE -L INE D IAGRAM OF N UMERICAL E XAMPLES

The one-line diagram of the numerical examples are shown

in Fig. 9.

10

helpful discussions. And this work was partially supported by

the CERT through the National Energy Technology Laboratory

Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-09NT43321.

R EFERENCES

[1] H. D. Chiang, Direct Methods for Stability Analysis of Electric Power

Systems-Theoretical Foundation, BCU Methodologies, and Applications.

New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011.

[2] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill,

Inc. 1994.

[3] P. Kundur, J. Paserba, V. Ajjarapu, Definition and Classification of Power

System Stability. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 19, No. 2,

pp. 1387-1401, May 2004.

[4] T. V. Cutsem, Voltage Stability of Electric Power Systems.

Boston/London/Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.

[5] P. W. Sauer, M.A. Pai, Power System Dynamics and Stability. PrenticeHall, New Jersey, U.S.A. 1998.

[6] T. V. Cutsem, Y. Jacquemart, J. N. Marquet, A Comprehensive Analysis

of Mid-term Voltage Stability. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol.

10, No. 3, pp. 1173-1182, August 1995.

[7] T. V. Cutsem, M. E. Grenier, D. Lefebvre, Combined Detailed and

Quasi Steady-State Time Simulations for Large-disturbance Analysis.

International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 28,

Issue 9, pp. 634-642, November 2006.

[8] P. Rousseaux, T. V. Cutsem Quasi Steady-State Simulation Diagnosis

Using Newton Method with Optimal Multiplier. Power Engineering

Society General Meeting, 2006.

[9] Q. Wang, H. Song, V. Ajjarapu Continuation-Based Quasi-Steady-State

Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 21, No. 1, February

2006.

[10] L. Loud, P. Rousseaux, D. Lefebvre, T. V. Cutsem A Time-Scale

Decomposition-Based Simulation Tool for Voltage Stability Analysis. In:

Proceedings of the IEEE Power Tech Conference, Vol. 2, Porto, Portugal,

2001.

[11] H. D. Chiang, M. W. Hirsch, and F. F. Wu, Stability regions of nonlinear autonomous dynamical systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1627, Jan. 1988.

[12] H. D. Chiang, J. S. Thorp, Stability regions of nonlinear dynamical

systems: A constructive methodology. IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 12291241, December 1989.

[13] J. Zaborszky, G. Huang, B. Zheng, and T. C. Leung, On the phase

portrait of a class of large nonlinear dynamic systems such as the power

system. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control , vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 415,

January 1988.

[14] Luis F. C. Alberto, H. D. Chiang, Theoretical Foundation of CUEP

Method for Two-Time Scale Power System Models. Power and Energy

Society General Meeting, 2009.

[15] F. Milano Power System Analysis Toolbox Documentation for PSAT

version 2.1.5, November 1, 2009.

Bus 08

- Chaos BookEnviado porH
- Advanced Control SystemsEnviado porIbmWasuser
- 00664150 dEnviado pordebasishmee5808
- StabilityEnviado porHernan Rey
- SMA 4135_2016--2017exEnviado porTariro Manyika
- [R. Park Reinforced Concrete SlabsEnviado porjuan carlos molano toro
- Raad - On the Influence of Anti-roll Stiffness on VehicleEnviado porCillian Byrne
- Lecture_03 Stability of Equilibrium PointsEnviado porakozy
- 3P04 Tutorial 3 Why Model 2008Enviado porkhaled_kamal_26
- Chapter 4 SolutionEnviado porMustafa Kösem
- IMPLEMENTATION OF A FUZZY LYAPUNOV-BASED CONTROL STRATEGY FOR A MACRO-MICRO MANIPULATOREnviado pormagdi elmalek
- (eBook - PDF - Robotics) Hybrid Control Design for Wheeled Mobile RobotEnviado porjugyboca
- Abd Elkareem Soliman PAPER 17Enviado porsanjeev_gaba6163
- Linear Systems Final Exam Formula SheetEnviado pormrdantownsend
- Beamer RodiakEnviado porrodiak465006
- PACAMEnviado porvertugo
- 112244Enviado porAbd Salah
- 2011-10-PotM-New-Approach-Simulation-Based-Type-Testing-ENU.pdfEnviado porreza515hei
- webercise system of linear equationsEnviado porapi-302635696
- Program Semester Genap Kelas xEnviado porPurwanti Wahyuningsih
- calculo edificios sismicosEnviado poraldo_memo
- dfftsturiufgcvcEnviado porAnil Kumar Moharana
- Culturally Responsive Unit Plan Parts I&II Sp17_FINAL(1).docxEnviado porSayema Zakiya
- 171205215.pdfEnviado porhuevonomar05
- lesson 5Enviado porapi-308212648
- Final News Letter Ria Risqiana AgustinaEnviado porRia Risqiana Agustina
- 5Enviado porKeerthana Subramanian
- week 5 assignmentEnviado porapi-296961543
- Adaptative Strategies for Noise Filtering - ChaosEnviado pornadamau22633
- Nonextensivity and Multifractality in Low-Dimensional Dissipative SystemsEnviado porLuizdanielalvesrios

- the-physics-of-braking-systems.pdfEnviado porAkash Sood
- OPTIMUM G__What is a good brake pressure profile.pdfEnviado porskysoblue025
- Simulating the Suspension Response of a High Performance Sports CarEnviado porskysoblue025
- CnnEnviado porskysoblue025
- Coastdown Paper FinalEnviado porskysoblue025
- Bernie Sanders Takes Aim at 'Greedy' Koch Brothers - Yahoo NewsEnviado porskysoblue025

- Text Segmentation Ppt NitheeshaEnviado porSathishShanmukhappa
- s0!00!10 - Foundation Typical Details and SchedulesEnviado porhuyxpkiss
- UNIX shell script standards for PowerCenter 713Enviado porBhanu Chowdary
- 9-10-25Enviado porrasgeetsingh
- Design Tip_ 5 Ways to Improve Part Moldability With DraftEnviado porLUQMAN HAKIM
- Installing TensorFlow on UbuntuEnviado porPiyush Dubey
- bajaj1Enviado porSandeep Madival
- Lg Oled Tv CategoryEnviado porJaimichu07
- Service Level Agreement - WikipediaEnviado porjaibmi
- KIVEnviado porBerthin Torres
- Home Design Studio ProEnviado porSalvatore La Spina
- h2o_hpccon_oct2015Enviado porKOWSHIK MUNDLAMURI
- LENOVO_v200_3000_manualEnviado porPiotr Krzysztof Łojek
- Xnlxibc 2011 Press Faq Final_090211Enviado poreaselpad
- 967rp05Enviado porNimesh Mohanpuriya
- Bellows StiffnessEnviado porMesquita Jose
- DT25 Power Amp ParametersEnviado porSergio Veloso
- NORSOK S-003 - Rev.3 - Environmental care.pdfEnviado porAtreider
- 3com 4400 Switch ManualEnviado porDjm1xerss
- Productivity Improvement in a Sewing Line Through Line Balancing in a Garment Manufacturing Company in the PhilippinesEnviado porEditor IJTSRD
- VIP_Wing Layout Structure_short IntroductionEnviado porThehoang Nguyen
- Grub2 - How Do I Set Windows to Boot as the DefaultEnviado porzbd426_23
- 1-s2.0-S0196890410003602-mainEnviado porGiannis Kandiloros
- ICT1718-U1-WordIntro.pdfEnviado porAngelica Profe
- colour 1.docEnviado porVel Murugan
- CH05Enviado porlichelles
- Edible Oil Processing LinesEnviado porOmar Moradi
- Parts Book EngEnviado porFlorin Hangan
- Threaded Fasteners Used in the Carbide Tooling IndustryEnviado porGabo Fernández
- lg_e2251t-bnr.pdfEnviado pordavid29x